Estimates say there's about 6 months of oil up there in ANWR. Considering the costs of building roads, derricks, pipelines, and destroying the ecosystem, is it really worth it for such little oil?
Estimates say there's about 6 months of oil up there in ANWR. Considering the costs of building roads, derricks, pipelines, and destroying the ecosystem, is it really worth it for such little oil?
fuck yeah!! so i can fill my hummer twice a day....
actually not sure of the price here in albuquerque...i ride my bike now...will take the car out today to get groceries...won't get gas though, i have a little vw golf...i fill it maybe once a month...next fill up should be in mid june, prices are likely to be 2.50 by then i guess
sorry... but there is no evidence that there was that much oil under the arctic range... why destroy a pristine environment to get access to doubtful oil supplies???
"destroy a pristine environment"??!
When was the last time you were in Alaska? Have you ever been to the tundra?
Anyone? Show of hands? And the likelihood that anyone will be going there anytime soon?
Didn't think so.
Oh, wait, _I_ live in Alaska.
What makes you so certain anything would be destroyed? You wouldn't believe the restrictions on current drilling. Last year (maybe year before?) someone drove an antique car from the tip of Chile to the "top of the world"--but had to stop short because of fears the car would drip oil. Not that there were any indications the car had leaks of any sort. EPA regulations are just that paranoid.
When was the last time you were in Alaska? Have you ever been to the tundra?
Anyone? Show of hands? And the likelihood that anyone will be going there anytime soon?
Didn't think so.
Oh, wait, _I_ live in Alaska.
What makes you so certain anything would be destroyed? You wouldn't believe the restrictions on current drilling. Last year (maybe year before?) someone drove an antique car from the tip of Chile to the "top of the world"--but had to stop short because of fears the car would drip oil. Not that there were any indications the car had leaks of any sort. EPA regulations are just that paranoid.
Way to show that you don't hold an extreme view on this.
Nick
I just am saying that the EPA should be a bitch... its their job to make sure the environment isn't unduely destroyed... so every little drop of oil should be punished to the fullest extent... Listen, I am from one of the last undeveloped coastal estuaries on the east coast, and it is damn well clear that even the legal limit of oil from a passing barge does a lot of damage and affects the environmental balance that plays in a place like that... So yes, I am thrilled every time a harbor patrol charges some drunk idiot dumping gasoline out of the back of his party boat... its their job and it has a noticeable effect...
That, alas, is America's particular dilemma, it being strangled by it's own highway system. We have entire communities (and parts within communities) that are inaccessible by anything other than cars. I certainly don't begrudge 99% of people who find themselves stuck needing a car.
Hybrids are a good start and they are getting more popular, albeit a half step (which is the best anyone can ask for...this is addiction after all. I'm not an advocate of cold-turkey treatments in most situations).
But as for gas-free* alternatives, I do not think hydrogen is feasible on a mass scale, thanks to terrorism. The concussion from a hydrogen tank exploding is vastly more destructive relative to a gas tank exploding. I don't like having buses be hydrogen powered, let alone all cars. It's a no-brainer to shoot a bullet into a hydrogen tank on a packed bus. We don't need this. Do we really want to go that route? And do we want to guarantee all car accidents are explosive (more so than gasoline) and deadly? This isn't FUD to scare us away from using hydrogen, I just want us to think about it before committing to it blindly.
I just pray for better battery technology or some yet-imagined technology.
Anyway I guess I'm off topic. We can continue in another thread if anyone wants. </ my offtopicness>
-----
* "gasoline"-free. I know hydrogen is a gas. Pedant.....
The busses here rarely run over 23% capacity, if you divy that up, with the families and couples...that comes out to 3 - 4 cars, the driver tells me that the bus burns as much gas as 4.5 "reasonable size" cars...save the earth my a**
The busses here rarely run over 23% capacity, if you divy that up, with the families and couples...that comes out to 3 - 4 cars, the driver tells me that the bus burns as much gas as 4.5 "reasonable size" cars...save the earth my a**
23% seems very low, but we'll go with that.
the average car carries 1.1 passengers. thus 4.5 reasonable sized cars would carry 4.95 people.
if a bus can hold 60 people and runs at 23% capacity, that is 13.8 passengers, more than twice the number of people carried, on average, by cars burning the same amount of fuel
here in cincinnati, i have never been on a bus that was under 50% or so capacity, and i ride almost daily. generally when i ride, the bus is at 80-100% or more capacity, and I have to stand about every other day.
Comments
Originally posted by Fran441
Estimates say there's about 6 months of oil up there in ANWR. Considering the costs of building roads, derricks, pipelines, and destroying the ecosystem, is it really worth it for such little oil?
fuck yeah!! so i can fill my hummer twice a day....
actually not sure of the price here in albuquerque...i ride my bike now...will take the car out today to get groceries...won't get gas though, i have a little vw golf...i fill it maybe once a month...next fill up should be in mid june, prices are likely to be 2.50 by then i guess
g
Originally posted by billybobsky
msannti,
sorry... but there is no evidence that there was that much oil under the arctic range... why destroy a pristine environment to get access to doubtful oil supplies???
"destroy a pristine environment"??!
When was the last time you were in Alaska? Have you ever been to the tundra?
Anyone? Show of hands? And the likelihood that anyone will be going there anytime soon?
Didn't think so.
Oh, wait, _I_ live in Alaska.
What makes you so certain anything would be destroyed? You wouldn't believe the restrictions on current drilling. Last year (maybe year before?) someone drove an antique car from the tip of Chile to the "top of the world"--but had to stop short because of fears the car would drip oil. Not that there were any indications the car had leaks of any sort. EPA regulations are just that paranoid.
Originally posted by Fangorn
"destroy a pristine environment"??!
When was the last time you were in Alaska? Have you ever been to the tundra?
Anyone? Show of hands? And the likelihood that anyone will be going there anytime soon?
Didn't think so.
Oh, wait, _I_ live in Alaska.
What makes you so certain anything would be destroyed? You wouldn't believe the restrictions on current drilling. Last year (maybe year before?) someone drove an antique car from the tip of Chile to the "top of the world"--but had to stop short because of fears the car would drip oil. Not that there were any indications the car had leaks of any sort. EPA regulations are just that paranoid.
and really they should be...
I think that translates to around 61 cents US! I feel bad for you guys...
Originally posted by macaddict74
84 cents Canadian in Toronto... And even that is high for us...
I think that translates to around 61 cents US! I feel bad for you guys...
61 cents per liter, no? meaning about $2.40 per gallon...
Originally posted by billybobsky
and really they should be...
Way to show that you don't hold an extreme view on this.
Nick
Originally posted by billybobsky
and really they should be...
My point exactly. They are paranoid and they can--and do--get it done and done right.
And heaven knows Alaska could use the jobs.
Originally posted by trumptman
Way to show that you don't hold an extreme view on this.
Nick
I just am saying that the EPA should be a bitch... its their job to make sure the environment isn't unduely destroyed... so every little drop of oil should be punished to the fullest extent... Listen, I am from one of the last undeveloped coastal estuaries on the east coast, and it is damn well clear that even the legal limit of oil from a passing barge does a lot of damage and affects the environmental balance that plays in a place like that... So yes, I am thrilled every time a harbor patrol charges some drunk idiot dumping gasoline out of the back of his party boat... its their job and it has a noticeable effect...
Originally posted by johnq
That, alas, is America's particular dilemma, it being strangled by it's own highway system. We have entire communities (and parts within communities) that are inaccessible by anything other than cars. I certainly don't begrudge 99% of people who find themselves stuck needing a car.
Hybrids are a good start and they are getting more popular, albeit a half step (which is the best anyone can ask for...this is addiction after all. I'm not an advocate of cold-turkey treatments in most situations).
But as for gas-free* alternatives, I do not think hydrogen is feasible on a mass scale, thanks to terrorism. The concussion from a hydrogen tank exploding is vastly more destructive relative to a gas tank exploding. I don't like having buses be hydrogen powered, let alone all cars. It's a no-brainer to shoot a bullet into a hydrogen tank on a packed bus. We don't need this. Do we really want to go that route? And do we want to guarantee all car accidents are explosive (more so than gasoline) and deadly? This isn't FUD to scare us away from using hydrogen, I just want us to think about it before committing to it blindly.
I just pray for better battery technology or some yet-imagined technology.
Anyway I guess I'm off topic. We can continue in another thread if anyone wants. </ my offtopicness>
-----
* "gasoline"-free. I know hydrogen is a gas. Pedant.....
The busses here rarely run over 23% capacity, if you divy that up, with the families and couples...that comes out to 3 - 4 cars, the driver tells me that the bus burns as much gas as 4.5 "reasonable size" cars...save the earth my a**
Originally posted by a_greer
The busses here rarely run over 23% capacity, if you divy that up, with the families and couples...that comes out to 3 - 4 cars, the driver tells me that the bus burns as much gas as 4.5 "reasonable size" cars...save the earth my a**
23% seems very low, but we'll go with that.
the average car carries 1.1 passengers. thus 4.5 reasonable sized cars would carry 4.95 people.
if a bus can hold 60 people and runs at 23% capacity, that is 13.8 passengers, more than twice the number of people carried, on average, by cars burning the same amount of fuel
here in cincinnati, i have never been on a bus that was under 50% or so capacity, and i ride almost daily. generally when i ride, the bus is at 80-100% or more capacity, and I have to stand about every other day.
at least i get decent millage...
Originally posted by billybobsky
yeah... because the US provides so many subsidies to the oil companies...
I don't agree---this is an international commodities market---the competition doesn't get much more perfect.
the refineries aren't producing enough gas from the oil to meet demand, this is the first time in history (?) that this has occured...